1 / 18

On-line Index Selection for Physical Database Tuning

On-line Index Selection for Physical Database Tuning. Karl Schnaitter UCSC & Aster Data Advisor: Neoklis Polyzotis ISSDM Mentor: John Bent SRL/ISSDM Symposium 2010. Index Tuning for Databases. SELECT b FROM R WHERE a = 10. Execution Plan 1. Reads whole table

tala
Télécharger la présentation

On-line Index Selection for Physical Database Tuning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. On-line Index Selection for Physical Database Tuning Karl Schnaitter UCSC & Aster Data Advisor: Neoklis Polyzotis ISSDM Mentor: John Bent SRL/ISSDM Symposium 2010

  2. Index Tuning for Databases SELECT b FROM R WHERE a = 10 Execution Plan 1 • Reads whole table • Discards rows where a ≠ 10 • Returns b from remaining rows Table Scan · · · Execution Plan 2 • Only accesses rows where a = 10 • May be much faster than a table scan Index Scan index(R(a))

  3. Introduction • The index selection problem for databases: • The goal is to choose the indexes that improve database performance • A crucial part of performance tuning • Index selection is very challenging • Query benefit must be weighed against the cost of creation, maintenance and storage • Dynamic query loads add more difficulty • In practice, index selection is typically handled by an experienced database administrator

  4. Previous Work • Auto-index tuning is an active research topic • Hammer and Chan, SIGMOD 1976 • Finkelstein et al., TODS 1988 • Chaudhuri and Narasaya, VLDB 1997 • Bruno and Chaudhuri, ICDE 2007 • …and numerous other references

  5. Off-line Tuning Tuning Workload Off-line Index Advisor Recommended Indexes User DBA • DBA controls index maintenance • DBA must know the workload in advance • Limited support for interactive tuning What-if Optimizer Create/Drop Indexes Actual Workload Database Server

  6. On-line Tuning On-line Index Advisor User DBA • Tuning is based on actual workload • DBA is out of the loop • Performance can become unpredictable What-if Optimizer Create/Drop Indexes Actual Workload Database Server

  7. Our Proposal: Semi-automatic Tuning Feedback Semi-automatic Index Advisor Recommended Indexes User DBA What-if Optimizer Create/Drop Indexes Actual Workload Database Server

  8. Example Session I like a; I want d I don’t like b Semi-automatic Index Advisor {a, b, c} User DBA {a, d, e,c} {a, f,c} • DBA makes decisions on index-maintenance • Workload is analyzed online • DBA expertise is coupled with index advisor What-if Optimizer Create/Drop Indexes Actual Workload Database Server

  9. Our Proposal: Semi-automatic Tuning Feedback Semi-automatic Index Advisor Recommended Indexes User DBA What-if Optimizer Create/Drop Indexes Actual Workload Database Server

  10. Generating Recommendations workload candidate selection User index candidates recommendation logic Work Function Algorithm Work Function Algorithm (WFA) of Borodin & El Yaniv 1998 + performance guarantees - exponential complexity recommended index set DBA

  11. Example of Index Interaction SELECT b FROM R WHERE a = 10 Execution Plan 1 • Only accesses rows where a = 10 • May be much faster than a table scan Index Scan index(R(a)) Execution Plan 2 • Only accesses index • If plan 2 is cheaper, the index on R.a becomes obsolete Index-Only Scan index(R(a,b))

  12. Interaction-Based Partitioning • Consider an undirected graph • Vertex for each candidate index • Edge between interacting indexes We call this a stable partition of the indexes Different components have independent benefits

  13. Improvement: Candidate Partitioning workload candidate selection partitioned index candidates User recommendation logic Need to handle feedback WFA WFA WFA recommended index set DBA

  14. Feedback Model • User provides votes for some indexes • Positive votes for indexes they want • Negative votes for indexes they don’t want • Votes may be explicit • E.g., user may reject the system’s recommendation to create an index • Votes may also be implicit • Creating an index casts a positive vote • Dropping an index casts a negative vote

  15. Handling Feedback • Votes create a soft constraint on future recommendations • Include indexes with positive votes • Exclude indexes with negative votes • Reverse these decisions if sufficient evidence is seen after the votes were cast

  16. Final Solution: WFIT workload candidate selection partitioned index candidates User recommendation logic WFA WFA WFA feedback recommended index set DBA

  17. Behavior of WFIT with Feedback • “Good” votes follow the best indexes chosen off-line • “Bad” votes are opposite of “Good” votes • Normalized against optimal schedule

  18. Conclusions • Semi-automatic tuning is a promising new approach to physical database design • Combines best features of existing approaches • User feedback is the key ingredient • We recommend indexes with provable performance guarantees • Using work function algorithm as the foundation • Future work may include: • More efficient workload analysis • A GUI frontend to present recommendations

More Related